Matt Western: The Chancellor will be aware that the CBI has spoken out and claimed that business is not ready for Brexit, which has already cost businesses billions of pounds in planning. But the advice is unclear. I spoke to the Federation of Small Businesses and to several small businesses last night, and they are extremely concerned that neither the infrastructure, nor the advice, are in place.

Jacob Young: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to boost our manufacturing sector, and the economy, is by creating 10 new free ports—and the best place for a free port is, of course, in Redcar?

Sajid Javid: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of free ports. It is a reminder that, as we forge a new chapter for our country outside the EU, there is so much we can do to boost opportunity in our country, and free ports are a key part of that.

Jesse Norman: The review of the off-payroll working rules reform was announced on 7 January 2020. The reform is due to be extended to medium and large-sized organisations in all sectors from 6 April. It is determining whether any further steps can be taken to ensure smooth and successful implementation, and a series of roundtables with stake- holders have already been conducted. The review will conclude by mid-February, after which recommendations will be made public.

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question about e-publications and see by the way, Mr Speaker, that your predecessor Speaker Bercow’s book, aptly named “Unspeakable: the Autobiography” has just been published. Apparently it is an online bestseller in the rather surprising, slightly niche category of blues musician biographies. Unlike many other e-books, it is considerably cheaper than the book itself; whether that will remain so is not clear. I do not know whether you have had a chance to peruse the work, Mr Speaker, but if you have, I am sure you will agree that no reader would have their appetite to read it affected by a reduction in tax. What this brings out is that the pricing of e-books is a commercial decision and it is far from clear whether changing the tax would affect that decision.

Martyn Day: I thank the Minister for his entertaining answer. Scottish National party Members are very disappointed that the last Government refused to back  our demands to remove VAT from electronic publications, so with the Budget only a month away, will he consider a change of policy so that at the very least, online children’s books and academic journals can become more affordable?

Local Authority Funding: Discussions with  Secretary of State

Rishi Sunak: The financial health of local authorities remains a priority for the Government and for me personally as a former local government Minister. I am pleased to say that next year’s local government finance settlement outlines and will deliver the biggest year on year increase in local government spending power for over a decade.

Sajid Javid: Let me tell the hon. Lady what we have seen under 10 years of Tory rule, after Labour’s great recession. We have had nine consecutive years of growth. We have an economy that is nearly 17% bigger than it was in 2010, and 3.9 million jobs have been created—I would think that a party that calls itself the Labour party would welcome that. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 45 years, and according to the International Monetary Fund, our economy will grow faster this year than Italy, Japan, France and Germany.

Jim McMahon: It is a matter of fact that the three largest co-ops in this country pay more tax than Facebook, Amazon and Caffé Nero combined, so not only are they creating jobs; they are also paying fairly into the Exchequer. Will the Minister meet me and representatives  from the co-op and mutuals sector to discuss that part of the economy and make sure that Britain can thrive in an inclusive way?

John Martin McDonnell: I asked about Wonga [Hon. Members: “You did.”] On the basis of that answer, I can see why No. 10 nicknamed the right hon. Gentleman CHINO: Chancellor in name only.
Wonga is just one example of the recent scandals in the financial sector. We have seen the scandals of closet tracking last year, London Capital & Finance, Woodford Investment Management, the tax avoidance by Lycamobile —a Tory party donor—NMC Health’s misreporting today, large-scale money-laundering, and audit failure after audit failure. Regulation of the finance sector—I say it again—is clearly failing, and now there is the risk to jobs resulting from the tardiness of a post-Brexit settlement. Let me put this to the Chancellor: can he assure me that the White Paper that he has promised today will address the failure of regulation and the culture of recklessness and abuse that has developed in some sections of the City, in addition to the risks from Brexit, so that we can plan a long-term stable future for our finance sector?

Sajid Javid: With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is confused between cutting spending and tackling waste, and we know that the previous Labour Government was good at neither of those, with overspending and loads of waste. It is right that as a Government we look carefully at every single pound that is spent and make sure it is done so appropriately.

Huw Merriman: The additional £5 billion for buses and cycle links is greatly welcome. Last year, the Select Committee on Transport called for additional funding for buses and a buses strategy, both of which are coming to fruition. How will the Prime Minister ensure that the money allocated to local authorities for these projects is spent by local authorities on these projects? Will it be ring-fenced and, if not, how will we really ensure that we are levelling up our public transport system?

Ian Blackford: I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of the statement. Let me be mindful of one reality. No number of prime ministerial vanity projects will ever heal the economic damage and the damage to connectivity that this Tory Brexit will inflict.
In terms of the HS2 announcement, enhanced rail infrastructure is obviously welcome, despite the indecision and waste that have been synonymous with the project. We will wait and see whether the Prime Minister is capable of getting this decision through his own party and past his own chief adviser. However, if the Prime Minister is truly committed to rail connectivity across these islands, will he engage with the Scottish Government to improve rail links from Scotland to the major cities of the north of England, such as Manchester, Newcastle and beyond? Will he also explore collaboration on the extension of the borders rail line, and what resources will be provided?
The Prime Minister may talk about his priorities of one nation; we know what nation he is talking about, and it definitely does not include the Scottish nation. Can I further ask, given his previous opposition to the Barnett formula and his party’s repeated failure to implement it fully, whether he can confirm whether all the spending he is determined to engage in will be subject to Barnett consequentials? Yes or no?
I welcome the fact that the UK Government are following the lead of the Scottish Government, who announced a £500 million bus infrastructure programme last September. Given the Prime Minister’s previous association with buses, however, can he reassure the House that false advertisements will be banned from the new bus fleet?
Finally, on the bridge, this is a Prime Minister who could not even build a bridge across the Thames, so he will therefore have to forgive those of us who are sceptical that he can build one over the 20-mile expanse of the North sea. Will the Prime Minister therefore provide the estimated £20 billion for this project to the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive so they can spend those moneys on their own priorities?

Victoria Prentis: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who is recovering from a major operation, has asked me to thank the volunteers and donors from all over the nation who have fought against HS2 over the past 11 years. The last three years have given us a few lessons in what gracious defeat looks like, and although I remain worried by the environmental, financial  and governance issues of the project, I really do wish it all the best. I was particularly pleased to hear what the Prime Minister said about the northern section and the speed by which he intends to deliver it, and about buses and bikes. I have one ask, on taking a holistic approach to blight; if it is impossible to regrow ancient trees or to get rid of congestion where it exists, can we please compensate communities by, for example, building their local hospital?

Boris Johnson: Every great infrastructure project is opposed by people at this stage. The M25 had 39 separate planning inquiries. The Treasury was against the M25, and, I seem to remember, delivering the Olympics, and it tried to get rid of Crossrail. Every single infrastructure project is opposed at these critical moments. We have got to have the guts and the foresight to drive it through.

Craig Whittaker: As my right hon. Friend knows, Calder Valley has been hit again by flooding, with the third most devastating flood in seven and a half years. Getting across the Pennines is a struggle at the best of times, let alone when you have been flooded, so the news about Northern Powerhouse Rail is fabulous for us in Calder Valley. But can he assure the House that we will not wait for HS2B to be determined before we start Northern Powerhouse Rail?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. I remember well working with my hon. Friend on that project and many others. This will drive jobs and apprenticeships for young people for a generation to come.

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman’s characteristic optimism is in marked contrast to the negativity that we heard from the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, there will be opportunities for procurement in Northern Ireland and, indeed, elsewhere. Buses spring to mind.

James Cartlidge: I very much welcome the statement, particularly my right hon. Friend’s commitment to a more convenient ticketing system. Many of my constituents commute into London three or four days a week for a better work-life balance, but find that they have no choice but to pay the cost of a full-time season ticket. I urge him to ensure that the trial of part-time season tickets is rolled out nationwide so that we have a ticketing system that suits the modern-day reality of our flexible labour force?

Alison Thewliss: The Scottish environmental journalist, Rob Edwards, has warned since 1995 about the munitions dumps by the Ministry of Defence in Beaufort’s Dyke, the deepest point in the north channel of the Irish sea, and the exact route of the Prime Minister’s latest fantasy bridge? Will he abandon the project and give the money to the Northern Irish and Scottish Governments directly so that we can invest in priorities for Scotland and Northern Ireland, rather than his fantasy plans?

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and advance notice of the regulations and steps he was going to invoke yesterday.
Our thoughts must be with all those diagnosed with novel coronavirus and those in quarantine, and I place on record again our thanks to NHS and Public Health England staff and all other staff involved in responding to the outbreak.
On the specific issue of the quarantine arrangements, I understand the approach the Government have taken, and the Secretary of State will recall that in response to last week’s statement I asked him what would happen should an evacuee wish to leave Arrowe Park. In response he understandably reminded the House that evacuees had signed contracts that effectively offered passage back to the UK in return for compliance with the Government’s quarantine arrangements. However, given that questions were raised around how practically enforceable those contracts were, and indeed wider questions about what was allowed under human rights legislation, I understand why the Secretary of State has invoked the regulations that he is entitled to do under the Public Health Acts. He has our support.
Quarantine arrangements must be seen to be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with law, and enforcement of those quarantine arrangements, including with powers of restraint where necessary, must be fully transparent, and the rights and freedoms of the quarantined evacuees must be fully understood so as to ensure they are treated with dignity and respect. We agree that a legislative framework for this is far preferable to the ad hoc contracts that were the original basis for the quarantines.
In order to maintain public confidence in these arrangements, that framework must be understood and scrutinised by Parliament. With that in mind, on the instrument the Secretary of State laid before the House yesterday, at what point will the House get an opportunity to consider the regulations and will that be on the Floor of the House? I appreciate that the Secretary of State is not one of the business managers—although there is going to be a Government reshuffle so who knows by the end of the week—but if he can give us some clarity at this point on that, we will appreciate it.
Turning to the UK response more generally, can the Secretary of State tell the House if he is asking clinical commissioning groups and trusts to make plans should this outbreak turn into a pandemic in the coming months? What work is he doing to ensure that the local plans are robust, and can he guarantee they will be fully resourced? What communications have directors of public health in local authorities received and how will they continue to be kept informed?
Is the Secretary of State confident that NHS 111 has sufficient capacity to deal with increased numbers of calls? Will community health trusts, which I understand  will be tasked with visiting suspected patients in their homes to carry our swab tests, be given extra resources to scale up capacity, or will they be expected to fund this extra work from their existing baselines?
With respect to the capital facility the Secretary of State has announced, I understand that hospitals are being given specialist pods to quarantine patients and access to this facility. Can he tell us whether GPs have the necessary equipment and resources to cope with patients who may present with novel coronavirus? Will they be able to apply for this capital facility?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s advice on travel arrangements, not least with school holidays coming up next week. Many people will want clarification. Can he assure us that Foreign Office advice is fully aligned with Public Health England advice, and tell us what monitoring arrangements are in place at airports for flights returning not just from China but other places across the world where there has been a coronavirus outbreak?
Finally, can the Secretary of State update the House on international efforts to share research and intelligence, as well as attempts to find a vaccine, and a timescale? He will know that there is a World Health Organisation summit today, for example.
On behalf of the official Opposition, we again thank all our hardworking NHS staff, particularly those on the frontline, some of whom have been diagnosed with coronavirus. We thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House, and reiterate our hope that he will continue to keep the House updated in the weeks ahead.

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful for the support of the Opposition for the measures we have taken. The best way to deal with an outbreak like this is on a bipartisan basis. The approach the House has taken has thus far has helped to enable as efficient and capable a response as possible to what is obviously a very difficult situation. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the use of the powers we brought into force yesterday must be proportionate. Enforcement, too, needs to be reasonable. That is a very important consideration.
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about NHS 111. We will ensure that NHS 111 services have support available. We have plans in place to expand support for those taking the calls on 111 if necessary. Thus far, we have not had to do that. Compared with the huge scale of the millions of calls to NHS 111 that are made, the number concerning those who think they may have coronavirus is still relatively small, but of course we stand ready to do that if necessary.
On timing, as far as I understand it business managers have not yet scheduled the debate on the affirmative procedure for the statutory instruments I presented yesterday. They are made affirmative—as in, they become law—the moment they are signed and thus are law now. They remain in force, with the requirement for Parliament to debate and pass them within 28 days. We will ensure that that happens. They then stay in force for two years, or until the end of the public health emergency is declared.
The hon. Gentleman asked about links with the local authority in Brighton. That is an incredibly important question. I understand that the links have been very close and that the public health officers in Brighton have been working very closely with Public Health England. I thank them, as well.
The hon. Gentleman asked about access to capital for GPs. If GP facilities or other parts of the NHS need capital upgrades, we will of course look at that. In the first instance, though, it is very important that people do not go immediately to their GP, but rather call NHS 111. If they do go to A&E, we will ensure that pods are available so that people are separated from the vast majority of those going to A&E, as we do not want them to be contaminated.
The advice remains absolutely clear: if you suspect that you may have coronavirus, call 111 and do not leave home until you have spoken to a clinician.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the Health Secretary for the way he has handled this crisis. We are all very aware that appearances before this House are only a tiny fraction of the huge amount of work going on behind the scenes. I also thank the shadow Health Secretary for the non-partisan way his party is approaching this public health crisis.
One of the most distressing things we see on TV in relation to what is happening in China in the affected province, is people being denied basic hospital treatment because the hospitals are full, whether because of coronavirus or another illness they happen to have. Will the Health Secretary give some idea of the preparations that are being made to protect people who will continue to have urgent illnesses, such as cancer, which will continue to need to be dealt with very promptly, even in such a situation as the virus exploding in the UK?

Philippa Whitford: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and we support the use of powers to maintain isolation, as they are critical for the health and safety of other people in the country. I would, however, also support that they must be transparent and proportionate. I also welcome that the four chief medical officers across the UK are working together on this issue.
The Government are advising symptomatic returnees from the high-risk countries, but should that not be all people returning from high-risk countries? We simply do not know what the prodromal part of the incubation period is, nor how infectious someone actually is before they have any symptoms at all. I have to say that I was surprised to see the bus drivers, who were driving those on their way to quarantine, sitting in the front seat in shirt sleeves besides someone in full hazmat gear. That seemed to me to send out a rather strange message.
It is also advised that only those from Hubei province should self-isolate even if asymptomatic, but we see from the cases in France that this is spreading very  quickly and we already have 40,000 cases across 28 countries. Therefore, if anyone is flying and going through airports, there is the risk of spread, of simply being on an aeroplane with someone coming from China.
I welcome the funding for vaccine research and the expansion to 12 test centres across the four nations, but what publicity campaign is planned to educate the public upfront not to go to their GP and not to go to accident and emergency, where they will actually spread it to someone else? I understand that the information is there on the Scottish NHS inform system or 111, but if someone is not looking maybe we need to be proactive about the message.
Finally, the UK is no longer part of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. While we are able to take part in the early warning and reporting system during transition, we are no longer part of the decision making or central procurement of vaccines. How much of that system is the UK still able to be part of at the moment during transition and in the long term? Does that perhaps raise up the agenda some of the areas of co-operation that need to be sought with European Union agencies?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course. Making sure that we have the equipment to keep our staff safe is a very important consideration—keeping medics safe is very important not only for them, but for the public, because they provide such an important service.

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do. On isolation, in particular, the two go hand in hand. People can play a part in combating this virus by washing their hands and using tissues and, where people are symptomatic, by calling 111 before going to a doctor and self-isolating when necessary.

Ben Everitt: I thank the Secretary of State and his team for keeping me and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) updated throughout this process. It has been a very worrying time, but that information has been very useful. I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating the professional way the local healthcare professionals, including those at Milton Keynes Hospital and beyond, and our wonderful council officers have risen to the challenge of hosting a coronavirus facility in Milton Keynes. It is also worth mentioning the police, who now have additional powers to keep that site safe. Can the Secretary of State assure me and the people of Milton Keynes that all the appropriate processes, procedures and powers are in place to keep our residents and their families safe?

Matthew Hancock: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who, as a Whip, cannot speak but who has also been working incredibly hard on behalf of people in Milton Keynes to reassure them, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that the extra 100 people from Wuhan the town has welcomed are now safely there in Milton Keynes. The council and the hospital have gone out of their way to make this as efficient as possible and to make those returning from Wuhan comfortable.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of the emergency business statement. The Opposition repeat that terrorist prisoners should not be released automatically but be subject to parole board assessment before release while serving their sentences.
I have three quick questions for the Leader of the House. First, when is the Bill likely to be published? Will it be published immediately after the statement? Secondly, what sort of timetable, in terms of protected time, does he have in mind for tomorrow? Thirdly, will he clarify if there will be a further statement on what resources will be available for the Parole Board and probation service? We want to keep our citizens safe.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the right hon. Lady and the Opposition Front Bench for the support that they have given. I understand that they have worked with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to ensure that there is satisfaction throughout the Chamber in respect of this very important business.
Let me respond to the three questions that the right hon. Lady asked. The Bill will be presented today; the time will be protected, so it will not be affected by statements or anything else tomorrow; and the Treasury has approved an increase in resources to ensure that the cost of maintaining people in prison, and the associated costs, are affordable.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, like me, has much experience in the criminal justice system. He will know that deciding whether remorse is real or feigned is sometimes a difficult judgment for a court to make. He makes his point very well.
I think it is right for me to deal at this stage with the concept of whether we should have gone further and introduced a rule of “no body, no release”. Tempting though that might be—and I listened carefully to the arguments—there is a danger that if we proceed too far along that path, we could inadvertently create an artificial incentive for people to mislead the authorities and to feign co-operation or remorse. Of course, in another context, we see the dangers that are inherent in what I have described as superficial compliance with the authorities. There is a fine balance to be maintained, but I think that the Bill as presented maintains it in a way that is clear, that increases public confidence in the system and that makes it abundantly plain to those who are charged with the responsibility of assessing risk that, in the view of this House, this issue is of particular public interest and public importance when it comes to the assessment that is to be made.
I was dealing with the essence of the non-disclosure, and I would add that the Parole Board must in particular take account of what, in its view, are the reasons for the non-disclosure. This subjective approach will allow the board to differentiate between circumstances in which, for example, the non-disclosure is due to a prisoner’s mental illness, and cases in which a prisoner makes a deliberate decision not to say where a victim’s remains are located. This subjective approach is fundamental to the proper functioning of the Bill. It ensures that the non-disclosure and the reasons for it—in other words, the failure by the prisoner to say what they did with the  victim’s remains—are fully taken into account by the board when it comes to decision making. It is then for the Parole Board, as an independent body, to decide what bearing such information has on the risk that a prisoner may present and whether that risk can be managed safely in their community. It reflects the established practice of the Parole Board, as included in its guidance to panel members in 2017, but it goes a step further in placing a legal duty to take a non-disclosure into account. This, as I have already mentioned, is part of our intention to provide a greater degree of reassurance to victims’ families by formally setting out the guidance in law.
I turn now to the second part of the Bill, which deals with the non-disclosure of different types of information by offenders. This has been prompted by the horrific case of Vanessa George. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) in his place. Vanessa George was recently released by the Parole Board after serving 10 years in prison, following conviction for multiple counts of sexual abuse against children at the Plymouth nursery where she worked. She also photographed the abuse of those children in her care and sent the images to other paedophiles. This was a horrific case, which those of us who had young children at the time, me included, remember all too graphically. Vanessa George’s crimes have caused widespread revulsion. Her abuse of the trust placed in her by the families of the children she was meant to care for and protect is shocking. Their pain has been compounded by the fact that the children she photographed cannot be identified from the images, and that she has refused to disclose their identities to the authorities. All the families involved have been left in a truly terrible limbo, not knowing whether their child has been a victim.
Again, we are seeking to respond by stipulating in law that such appalling circumstances must be fully taken into account by the Parole Board when making any decisions on the release of such an offender. Clause 2 of the Bill will amend the release provisions that apply to an extended determinate sentence that has been imposed for the offence of taking or making indecent photographs of children and, as in clause 1, we will place a statutory obligation on the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of information about the identity of a child or children featured in such images when the board makes a public protection decision, including one to release the prisoner. The provision will apply when the Parole Board does not know the identity of the child or children in such an image but believes that the prisoner is in a position to disclose it and has chosen not to do so. It is this non-disclosure and the reasons for it, in the view of the Parole Board, that must be taken into account before any release decision is made.

Alex Chalk: I heartily applaud the Government for taking this important step. Does the Secretary of State agree that we also need to reassure people that when such an individual comes to be sentenced the first place, if they have not at that stage disclosed where the body is or the identity of the victims of their crime, the judge should be able to take that into account in setting the minimum period that they should serve? In other words, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the impact does not simply crystallise at the point of release?

Lucy Allan: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and his excellent campaign, and echo many of the sentiments that he expressed in the superb speech that he just delivered to the House. I also express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor for all his work and efforts, since his appointment, to focus on victims and to put their rights front and centre. I am also extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for her work that focuses on the rights of victims, which traditionally we perhaps have not put so much at centre stage. The Government do themselves proud by making such a commitment to victims, and the Bill is an example of that desire to put victims front and centre.
I of course welcome the Bill, understand the rationale behind it and support it, but I wish to make some remarks that I should be most grateful if Ministers  considered. Those remarks relate to the Parole Board’s role, which the hon. Member for St Helens North alluded to just a short moment ago. The placing of a statutory duty on the Parole Board to ensure that the issue of non-disclosure is properly considered is a positive step and a very welcome gesture, but the Bill will not fundamentally change the Parole Board’s current practice. The families in such cases will still have to rely on the Parole Board’s discretion, and that raises some questions about the Parole Board’s role when it comes to victims’ interests.
We have already heard about concerns relating to the Parole Board’s accountability and transparency, and there are clearly some gaps in its duties relating to responsibilities to victims. In the light of recent high-profile cases—for example, the Worboys case—there has clearly been a loss of public confidence in the Parole Board. There is a real need for the law to be seen to be on the side of victims. Yes, that is exactly what the Bill seeks to achieve, but in relying solely on the Parole Board’s discretion, it does not quite achieve that.
In the Worboys case, the Parole Board decided in January 2018 to release this serial offender early, after only eight years. The then Lord Chancellor was unable to intervene—in fact, he backed the Parole Board’s decision—leaving it to victims to mount a judicial review, which fortunately found that there had been shortcomings in the decision-making process. The courts were therefore able to require the Parole Board to revisit the decision, more information then came to light, and Worboys was sentenced further for additional attacks.
A feature in the Worboys case was the Parole Board’s failure to notify victims of Worboys’s forthcoming release. Another feature was that the Government felt completely powerless to intervene on behalf of victims. The case was not a one-off. The Parole Board is, of course, bound to balance the need to keep the public safe against the human rights law that prevents the arbitrary detention of offenders—that is the Parole Board’s job and its duty, and that is what it does—and the Bill will still allow the Parole Board to release an offender who has failed to disclose the known whereabouts of a victim’s body or failed to disclose the identity of a child victim. The Parole Board is not bound, by this Bill or by any other requirement, to take into consideration the rights of victims. I would very much like Ministers to consider how in future they can look at the Parole Board’s role and augment it to ensure that victims’ rights are up there with the rights of offenders. Clearly, this Bill will still allow a killer, sentenced to life, to be released, even if he has failed to disclose the whereabouts of a victim’s body. Most people would say that such a person may not be properly rehabilitated if he is refusing to co-operate on something as basic as the location of a victim’s remains, or the identity of a child.
The Bill raises issues about the Parole Board that were out there and being discussed, but that were not satisfactorily addressed in the previous Parliament under previous Lord Chancellors. Perhaps, this new Government, with the new approach that has been so much on display with the current Lord Chancellor, could consider how the role of the Parole Board could be looked at in more depth. I know that there was a review of the Parole Board in 2018. One recommendation was that there should be a further, more in-depth review into the Parole Board’s activity to see how legislation might  actually make it a more transparent and accountable body. I would very much welcome such a review, especially if we could pursue it in a little more depth. We must continue to ensure that the rights of victims are equal to those of the offenders.
I also wish to touch on another issue around the Parole Board. In Telford, I have been trying to find out whether a serious perpetrator of child sexual exploitation, who was sentenced to a 26-year extended sentence in 2012, has been released. He was eligible for parole seven years later, in December 2019, and I cannot get an answer on whether that has happened. I cannot get an answer, because I do not know his prisoner number. If I am unable to learn whether he has been released, the community I represent is also unable to know. The victims and their families also want to know. We do not want a Parole Board that does not feel that it has any duty to the victims. That is something that this new Government, with their commitment to victims and their families, can do so much about. I know that victims’ families and the wider community would truly appreciate such a step.

Daisy Cooper: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being late for the start of this debate. The Liberal Democrats also welcome this Bill. It is a good move and we are glad to see it here today. I am pleased that the hon. Member has been talking about the rights of victims in particular. The Bill responds to a number of cases, including that of Vanessa George, a nursery worker who was convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse and of taking and distributing indecent images of children. She then refused to name those victims. Does she agree that we need the Government to take many more steps to provide support and advice to victims of sexual abuse, including by providing sustainable grant funding for specialist independent support services in relation to those who are survivors of violence against women and girls?

Luke Pollard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) who has done so much to champion justice especially for those people who have been abused as children. I welcome the two sets of provisions in the Bill. I will constrain my remarks to Vanessa George and the abuse of babies and toddlers in Plymouth. First, though, let me say how grateful I am to Mr Speaker and to the Opposition for allowing me to speak from the Back Benches instead of from my usual spot on the Front Bench. This is a very important constituency issue for those whom I represent.
Speaking up on behalf of those children who attend Little Ted’s Nursery has been, although very difficult, a privilege and an honour. The experiences of those children have been so utterly harrowing. Because their identities are still unknown and because there is a desire to keep what is left of their childhood innocence intact, not many people have come under the media spotlight and been recognised publicly for what they have done. I want to thank all the families for their courage, their steadfast determination and for their love of their kids. Without them and their work, we would not be here today with this Bill in front of us. I would love to name all of them and give them credit, but I prefer to give them the even better privilege of just knowing that they were listened to and that their children’s innocence is safeguarded.
Ever since the news of Vanessa George’s release came to light, I have been campaigning to keep her behind bars. I am not a hang ‘em and flog ‘em politician. That is not my style. But when it comes to the abuse of babies and toddlers, what Vanessa George did both in terms of the acts she committed and of her continual refusal to name which children she abused and which she did not has cast a whole new light over my views on the Parole Board and her release.
As the Front-Bench teams have touched on, the case around Vanessa George is exceptionally disturbing. The abuse, including the penetration of babies and toddlers and the photographs of that penetration and abuse, is something that is really, really difficult for many of us to understand—how someone could do that and how someone could then share those images. The severity of that case was part of the reason why she was given an indeterminate sentence. It was for reasons of public protection. The indeterminate sentence has somewhat complicated this case along the way due to its particular legal position. When sentencing, the words of the judge to Vanessa George were quite profound. She said:
“I cannot emphasise too strongly that this is not a seven-year sentence. It is emphatically not. It is, in effect, a life sentence. Many, and I suspect everyone deeply affected by your dreadful deeds, will say that would not be a day too long.”
The parents of those babies and toddlers were let down twice: first, by a system that did not protect their children in a place where they should have been safe; and, secondly, as one parent told me through tears, that George was released with the identity of those children still not known.
When we talk about matters such as this, we sometimes talk about the identity of the victims, but, in this case, it is not only the victims, but those young children who could be victims. We do not know precisely which  children she abused. I have heard the stories of what happened when this news came to light. Parents gathered in a hall and were separated into two groups. One group was the parents of the children who could have been abused and the other the parents of those who were probably not abused. Hearing about how friends were separated into two groups was just harrowing.
I will return to that in a moment, but there is a point about communication that is also key. Many of the families heard about this on social media. The campaign that the parents and I started after her release called not only for a change in the law, which is what we are seeing today, but for a change in how the Parole Board works. The hon. Member for Telford spoke about the operational side of this, which is also really important. Changing the law to keep people like Vanessa George behind bars is important, but how that is communicated and how parents and victims are involved is especially important.
I want to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) in thanking the Secretary of State for the way in which he has engaged on this. Much in this place is a disappointment, but in this case the cross-party working and the professional way that not only the Secretary of State but his Ministers engaged with me and with the families’ concerns are truly remarkable. It is an example that shows that cross-party working can deliver results, and I thank the Secretary of State sincerely for that work.

Julian Lewis: With all his experience in this tragic case, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the fault lay with inadequate powers for the Parole Board, in that they felt that they had no option, or did the Parole Board have the power not to release Vanessa George and choose not to exercise that  power, in which case there is something terribly wrong with the recruitment practices for membership of the Parole Board?

Luke Pollard: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I would not wish to sit on a Parole Board for all the money in the world. It must be an incredibly difficult decision to choose whether or not to keep what are in many cases very serious offenders behind bars. As regards Vanessa George, I think the Parole Board had no choice but to release her, and that is why this change of law is so essential. Indeed, initially I called on the Secretary of State to reopen the investigation to ensure that no stone was left unturned, and no charge was missed that could be put against her to try to keep her behind bars. The dedication and professionalism of Devon and Cornwall police in reopening the file and ensuring that nothing was left in it showed that the system had done as much as it could do, which is why a change in the law is absolutely necessary in ensuring that we can keep someone like Vanessa George behind bars.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address my concerns about how the law will be implemented. Thankfully, there are very few cases like that of Vanessa George and very few cases in which there has been child abuse on this scale where, when it has come to light, the names have been withheld. But there are many more cases in which a charge of taking an indecent image of a child sits alongside other more serious charges, and reading the Bill I am unsure how these provisions will work alongside additional charges when the primary charge is more severe. If the conviction is spent on the first charge, does the ability to withhold information on a subsequent charge of taking indecent images mean that the whole sentence could be locked down?
There is a concern, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who made a professional debut at the Dispatch Box, about what happens to Vanessa George regarding licence conditions. I am grateful to the Parole Board for setting such comprehensive licence conditions that mean that she cannot go back to Plymouth, that she should never bump into or to be seen near any of the children that she abused, and that she should never be able to access the internet. We can now buy internet-enabled fridges, so there is a real difficulty in enforcing some of the minor points of those conditions. May I ask the Minister whether, if a licence condition is now triggered and she is called to jail, the provisions in the Bill would apply? Or would they fall away, and would these provisions apply only to new offences?
Very briefly, as I am grateful for the time the House has given me to speak, the operation of the experience around Vanessa George has shown that it is not only the deficiency in the words of the law that needs to be looked at but the whole journey for victims, particularly those brave and courageous parents who gave evidence at the parole hearings. I would like the Government to look into introducing a system of video links through which victims—or, in this case, the parents—could give evidence. Going into a jail where the perpetrator of such heinous crimes against their children is being held—especially when that jail is far away from where they live—is a really harrowing experience for parents. The ability to give evidence via video link from the local court is common in the rest of the criminal justice system, but not in Parole Board hearings.
There is also a point about communications. Many of the parents who were involved in the Vanessa George case found out about her release on Facebook or via our local paper. That is not because of a lack of willingness from the authorities to keep those parents’ details. It is that there have been 10 years of changing email addresses and addresses. For some parents, the stress of the abuse even broke the relationship and couples went their separate ways, meaning that the communication point was held by just one person. The process needs to be looked at again. I encourage the Secretary of State to look at the principle that was adopted with the new organ donation law: an opt-out system. This would mean that everyone, especially for these most severe cases, would be automatically included in the system, unless—for very good reasons that I think we can all understand—those people choose to opt out of getting regular updates. Implementing such a system would make a substantial difference.
There is a real opportunity to take some of the lessons learnt from the Vanessa George case and not only to make better law, but to ensure better operation of the Parole Board’s processes. I believe that many of the children she abused still do not know what has happened to them. Many will not know how they feel or that they are feeling the way they do because of their childhood experiences; they will not know about what is going on. Having spoken to many of the parents, I know that there is a daily worry. They ask themselves, “What happens if my child asks me about her?” or “What happens if they ask, ‘Did I go to that nursery?’” These are live questions for many of the parents.
The parents and children I have spoken about this afternoon have a life sentence ahead of them. There is no escape. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North mentioned that there is no escape for families who cannot have a body to bury, so there is no escape from the realities of this sentence. Now that Vanessa George has been released, she may be watching these proceedings. To her, I say: name those kids and let us give the families the peace that they deserve.

Anthony Browne: It is an honour and a pleasure to follow so many thoughtful and compassionate speeches, and to see such cross-party consensus. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for his campaign, and to the Home Secretary and fellow Ministers for bringing the Bill to the House.
On 10 September 2001, I was in New York and had lunch with my wife at the World Trade Centre. The next morning, I saw the twin towers collapse. I was a journalist at The Observer at the time, so while others were fleeing ground zero, I went down there and saw the world’s worst terrorist incident close up. The reason I mention this is that the biggest impact of that terrible tragedy on me was the response of the relatives of victims. From Tuesday lunchtime—a few hours after the attacks—pictures of people started popping up around Manhattan, stuck to lamp posts and railings, with messages asking, “Have you seen this person?” By the evening, whole areas in New York, such as Union Square, were covered with pictures of faces of people who were missing, put up by relatives who were desperately searching for them.
I spoke to many relatives of the missing, as they went from hospital to hospital, visited known favoured places, went to work and called friends to see if they could find their missing husband, wife, brother, sister, son or daughter. There were literally thousands of people, all looking—looking even when, really, there was no longer any hope. The relentless energy they put into it was astonishing. The one thing that they could not do was what they were told to do, which was to stay at home and wait for a phone call. There were thousands of people with missing loved ones, and all their reactions were fundamentally the same. As the hours turned to days and the days turned to weeks, it remained all-consuming: the need to know; the need for some form of closure.
When reading the case of Helen McCourt, this is what I was reminded of. The circumstances are different from what we are discussing today, but this most powerful and natural human reaction—this psychological imperative in response to loss—is what motivates the legislation that is Helen’s law.
As we have heard, on 9 February 1988, Helen McCourt, a 22-year-old insurance clerk, went home after work and got off a bus just 500 yards from her house in Merseyside. She was never seen again. Her body has never been found. She had worked as a barmaid in the local pub, the George and Dragon, which was next to her house and where she was also a regular. The publican, Ian Simms, was convicted of a murder on overwhelming evidence. Her blood and fingerprints were found in his flat above the pub. Part of her earring was found in the boot of his car. He was imprisoned, but has always refused to say where her body is. He has just been released from prison, but is still refusing to say where the body is.
Helen’s mother, Marie McCourt, has campaigned relentlessly since her daughter’s murder. I want to join the tributes that we have already heard to Marie McCourt and to that campaign, without which this legislation would not be here today. Without the body of her daughter, Marie McCourt cannot bury her. She cannot have full closure with a funeral. She cannot visit her daughter’s grave to lay down flowers and to remember her daughter. She cannot properly grieve.
Not knowing the location of the body does not just mean that the victim’s family suffer even more than they already are. For the murderer, not revealing the location of the body means that he retains some control over his victim’s family. Those involved have talked about how it can give the murderer gratification. It certainly shows that the murderer has not properly taken responsibility for his crime or felt remorse. If the murderer is released without revealing the location of the body, it compounds the family’s suffering. The family do not know where their loved one’s body is, and the one person who does know is walking around freely and refusing to say. It is unconscionable. But this is what has now just happened.
Ian Simms may insist that he is innocent, but that is simply not the case: the evidence was utterly conclusive. He is still refusing to let Marie McCourt have a proper funeral for her daughter. That is why I support Helen’s law and why over half a million people signed a petition to for it to be made law. That is why I support this Bill. I regret, as some said earlier, that the Bill did not come in time to stop Ian Simms being released from prison.
The number of cases that the Bill affects may be small, but the injustice it corrects is huge. The issue of murder without a body has a long and difficult history. Courts used to be very reluctant to convict someone of  murder when there was no body. But more recently, forensic science has become far more sophisticated, and, as with the case of Helen, courts are now more willing to pass convictions for murder even when there are no bodies. Cases like this are bound to become more frequent.
This Bill does not go as far as some campaigners have called for: an automatic ban on release from prison for murderers who do not reveal where the bodies are. But it does impose a legal requirement on parole boards to take into account the fact that a murderer has not revealed the location of their victim’s body. That sends a very clear message to parole boards of what society and Parliament expect of them. Putting that into law will ensure a more consistent and fairer approach.
I agree with the Government that we cannot automatically impose a ban on the release of murderers who refuse to reveal the location of the body. What happens in cases where the murderer would be willing to reveal the location of body but genuinely does not know where it is? What if the murderer cannot remember, perhaps because of dementia? The variety of cases means that parole boards have to have some discretion, and I think this Bill gets the balance right.
I have always believed that justice needs to focus far more on the rights, wishes and needs of victims, and for that reason I commend this Bill to the House.

Lee Anderson: I have two sons and I cannot imagine life without them, let alone losing one to a murderer. When Helen McCourt was murdered in 1988 her family lost a beautiful young lady with her whole life ahead of her. It is impossible to understand the pain that they must have felt all those years ago, but of course, the pain has not stopped, because the cruelty continues. It is indeed cruel not to allow grieving families the opportunity to lay their loved ones to rest. This cruelty must be dealt with.
Helen’s law will mean that the Parole Board must consider this cruelty when reviewing an offender’s suitability for release. A murderer who refuses to reveal the location of a victim’s body is not suitable for release. Parole Board guidance makes it clear that offenders who withhold information may still pose a risk to the public and could  therefore be denied parole. Helen’s law will, however, make it a legal requirement for the Parole Board to consider the withholding of information when deciding whether an offender should be released.
Helen’s law follows the tireless campaigning of Marie McCourt, Helen’s mother. I want to praise the bravery and tenacity of Helen’s mum, who through a terrible tragedy has managed to bring about these much-needed changes. Murderers who refuse to disclose where their victims are located only prolong the suffering of innocent families and deny them a proper burial. This legislation will mean that families will not have to endure a lifetime of suffering and not knowing where their loved ones’ remains are. It is said that time is a great healer, but not in cases like this. The only thing that can help to start healing the wounds is to support victims’ families through this Bill.

Chris Philp: We are standing here today because of two incredibly tragic cases: the tragic murder of a wonderful young women, Helen McCourt, 32 years ago at the age of just 22, in the prime of her life with everything to look forward to; and the terrible abuse committed by a nursery teacher, Vanessa George, who abused the trust that was placed in her by parents of tiny children. Yet from these tragic cases, today’s debate shows some good can come. I pay particular tribute to Marie McCourt, who I believe is in the House today, for her tireless and very brave campaigning. I can only imagine the grief and anguish she must have experienced every day that she has campaigned on this case, bringing back, as it must have done, the terrible memory of what happened to Helen. Yet she has persisted and she has persevered, because she has been determined that others will not suffer the terrible grief and anguish that she has. There can be few sacrifices for a parent more poignant than to go through this sort of experience, reliving terrible events, simply to help others avoid the same experience. As a parent myself, I thank her and pay tribute to her for the enormous sacrifice she has shown by campaigning in this way over so very many years. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I would also like to thank the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), her constituency Member of Parliament, who has campaigned with energy, vigour and, I must say, a great deal of charm in making sure that this issue has not been forgotten, despite the political upheaval of the past few years. There may have been general elections, referendums, Dissolutions and Prorogations, but thanks to his hard work, persistence and perseverance this issue has not been forgotten. The Second Reading of the Bill today is testament to his hard work on this topic.
I might say the same thing about the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who has campaigned for his constituents; parents who, for reasons he explained, have not wanted to come forward into the public gaze, not wanting to expose their children to the publicity that would have accompanied them stepping into the limelight. He has spoken for them: he has spoken for those parents and for those  children. He has made sure that the Bill encompasses those particular circumstances as well. I thank him and pay tribute to him for the fantastic work he has done in making sure that those children are not forgotten by this House.
As hon. Members have said, the Bill is a testament to the House of Commons and our system at its best. We have worked together. We have co-operated. We have overcome obstacles where we have encountered them. I think everybody who has been involved in this process can be extremely proud of the part they have played in it. I thank the shadow Minister for the support he has shown today in backing the Bill.
I would like to pick up on one or two of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) reminded us that victims should be at the heart of the process. I entirely agree. The victims Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), is on the Front Bench listening to the debate, together with the Lord Chancellor. It was only last September that the Government put more money into independent sexual violence advisers, who are there to help victims of sexual violence, and into rape centres. I very much hope there is more the Government can do in the weeks and months ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Telford also mentioned the fact that there is still an element of Parole Board discretion, as there has to be, for the reasons the Lord Chancellor clearly outlined in his opening speech. We are very mindful that the operation of the Parole Board does need careful consideration. A number of Members have made reference to that this afternoon. In addition to the review already under way, we will be conducting a root and branch review of the way the Parole Board operates to make sure the points raised by hon. Members are fully taken into account. That follows a relatively recent change whereby the Lord Chancellor can ask the Parole Board to reconsider a decision if he believes that the decision was not right the first time. That was introduced following the John Worboys case. I know that he has used that power a number of times and that it has, on some occasions, been successful. I take on board entirely the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford made.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport asked some questions, one of which was: if there is a number of offences that somebody is serving a prison sentence for and only one of the sentences qualifies under clause 2, would the provisions still apply? The answer is that they would still apply, if the qualifying offence is one of a number of qualifying offences. He mentioned such things as video links for parents or families of victims to give evidence at Parole Board hearings, as well as contact details and opt-out, rather than opt-in communications, and those points were extremely well made. I hope that the root-and-branch review will look at them and I thank him for raising them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about recall. The provisions that we are debating apply to the first release that may occur. If a prisoner is released and then recalled, the statutory provisions that we are enacting will not apply, but the Parole Board guidance will, requiring it to take into account the non-disclosure—so the statutory provisions will not apply, but the Parole Board, under its guidelines, will have to account for those matters.
I turn to the questions that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who I can see is showing an interest in these topics. Where there is a standard determinate sentence, the provisions of the Bill do not apply because there is no Parole Board decision—release is automatic. Whether a sentence is a standard determinate sentence is a matter for the trial judge at the point of sentencing and it depends on whether the trial judge decides that the offender is dangerous. Clearly, for murder cases, for example, a life sentence with a tariff is mandatory, but with some of the indecent image offences in clause 2, it is conceivable that if a judge did not find that the offender was dangerous, they might hand down a standard determinate sentence. However, that was not the case with Vanessa George—it was an extended determinate sentence—and the expectation is clearly that any serious offender who is dangerous will receive an extended determinate sentence, and therefore, the Bill’s provisions would apply to those offenders.
On standard determinate sentences and releases more generally, the House rightly passed a statutory instrument a week or two ago moving back the automatic release point from half-way to two thirds for longer sentences, of seven years and over. We intend to go further in the sentencing review and Bill later this year to make sure that the most serious offenders serve more of their sentence in prison, respecting the expectation of victims, which so many Members have spoken about this afternoon.
This law places on a statutory footing the fact that the non-disclosure of a victim’s whereabouts or the identity of child victims of indecent imagery must be considered by the Parole Board. That means that there is no discretion for the Parole Board to disregard these considerations—it has to take them into account—and there is no way that anybody, other than this House, can ever change this provision in future. This is a significant step forward for victims. It will make sure that non-disclosure is properly and fully considered by the Parole Board in all circumstances, and it sends a clear message to any prisoner who is currently serving one of these sentences that this House finds it unacceptable that they fail to disclose the whereabouts of a victim’s body or the identity of victims.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) talked about his constituent, Linda Jones, and her daughter, Danielle Jones, who was murdered by Stuart Campbell, who is currently serving a prison sentence. The message that Stuart Campbell and others like him should hear loud and clear, on this day, from this House, is that their failure to disclose is unacceptable and abhorrent and that they should make that disclosure straightaway. We are striking a blow today for the rights of victims and their families, who deserve to be able to move on with their lives following crimes of the most appalling kind. I pay tribute again to the bravery of Marie McCourt in bringing this matter forward over so many years. The Bill is a testament to her bravery and to her daughter, and it is right that we shall know it as Helen’s law.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Stuart McDonald: I shall come to that point later in my speech, if I may, but I can think of examples that are much closer to home than those that the hon. Gentleman has given. For instance, the Republic of Ireland has an open border with a country that has a completely independent immigration system, but no one seems to think it necessary to close the border to the north, or to introduce routine checks at ferry ports or anywhere else.
All the reasons why such a tailored approach is necessary have been rehearsed repeatedly by my hon. Friends in the House for several years, and have been set out in a series of Scottish Government Papers as well as in independent reports. Historically, Scotland’s population story has been one of out-migration. Only since 2001 has the country seen a sustained period of net in-migration, driven by a growth in both the number of EU citizens and the number of people from the rest of the UK who are coming to live and work in Scotland. While that recent history of in-migration and population growth has been welcome, the old history has left us with a legacy of a rapidly increasing older population and a smaller share of younger working-age people. Those challenges are not unique, but they are more pronounced in Scotland than in other parts of the UK and, indeed, Europe.
Looking ahead towards mid-2043, even as matters stand, we see that all Scotland’s very modest projected population growth is set to be from in-migration, with more deaths than births expected each year. Our working-age population is expected to remain the same size, but the population of older people will increase. Those trends are either distinct to Scotland in the UK context, or far more pronounced than they are in the UK as a whole.

Stuart McDonald: My hon. Friend is right, and the sooner that happens the better.
So what do we seek to achieve through today’s debate? I have been in this place long enough to know that even in the rather unlikely event that I make one of the greatest speeches in Parliamentary history, neither the immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) nor the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is going to suddenly perform a 360-degree U-turn and wholeheartedly embrace every aspect of these proposals, much as I would love that to be the case. I am simply asking the Ministers, particularly the immigration Minister, to engage with them seriously. Indeed, I make that request of all Members in all parties.
After the recent publication of the report from the Migration Advisory Committee, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said:
“Business will want to see the Scottish and UK Government working seriously and closely together on these and future recommendations, ensuring appropriate policies are devised and implemented that work for businesses and our economy”.
In anticipation of the Scottish Government’s report, Scottish Labour’s external affairs spokesperson said
“Scottish Labour supports exploring a degree of flexibility within an overarching UK immigration system”.
A spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives said:
“We’re willing to look at any proposal which helps Scotland prosper in this new era.”
I say to the Ministers that if they were to speak to their MSP colleagues, I think they would find—privately, at least—a degree of sympathy for the proposals that the Scottish Government are making, so I ask them please to engage with them as well.
In contrast, all we had from the Home Office was an unnamed spokesperson dismissing the proposals before they could possibly have been read, and we have since had a fortnight not so much of serious engagement but of knockabout politics, nonsense and soundbites. To draw a line under this skirmishing and to show that the UK Government do indeed treat with respect the suggestions put forward by the Scottish Government and supported by Scottish business, unions and civic society, will the immigration Minister meet Scottish Government Ministers and officials before he finalises the new immigration White Paper and introduces the new immigration Bill? That was something that his predecessor bar one, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), did on a regular basis when she attended Cabinet as immigration Minister, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can take his Department back to that form of constructive engagement. That would be far better than the nonsense and soundbites that we have been served in the fortnight since the Scottish Government’s paper was launched.
I want to address some of those soundbites now. We have been told for the 100th time that the UK Government want an immigration system that works for the whole of the UK. Believe it or not, I am quite happy to support that ambition too, as it is entirely consistent with what the Scottish Government propose. We simply believe that a system that works for the whole UK can—and, indeed, must—reflect the different needs and circumstances of its different parts. The Scottish Government paper expressly proposes further change to the UK-wide immigration system. This would involve changes that could benefit all of the UK as well as practical, tailored policies that provide solutions to Scotland’s needs, drawing on international models. There is a whole chapter in the report dedicated to whole-of-the-UK policy change, if only we could get people to read it. Is the Minister seriously saying that the Canadian migration system does not work for all of Canada because it has different rules for different provinces? In fact, most people there would say that the systems and rules work better for the whole precisely because they are tailored to suit the different parts.
We have also been told for the 100th time that immigration is a reserved matter. We are all absolutely aware that that is the case for now, but it does not have to stay that way, and we certainly would prefer that it  did not. Once again, however, nothing in the Scottish Government’s paper is inconsistent with that. I have explained that, ideally, it would be for the Scottish Government to draft the criteria and to consider applications for a Scottish visa. However, it could be the UK Government who define the criteria and rules, receive and assess the applications and issue the visas. The UK Government do, of course, implement a shortage occupation list for Scotland, illustrating that tailored approaches are perfectly possible, even if they are not willing to go as far as formal devolution. Again, this is all in the Scottish Government’s paper, and I encourage people to read it.
We have also been told a few times that the Migration Advisory Committee has rejected the idea of a devolved system, but that is absolutely not a fair representation of what the MAC said. It is true that the Committee decided, on balance and accepting that there were good arguments on both sides, that if the Government want a salary threshold for tier 2 visas, it should be one salary across the UK. That went against the majority of stakeholder submissions, particularly from Scotland. Nevertheless, it is totally wrong to say that the MAC rejected the case for devolving migration powers or introducing tailored rules for Scotland. To quote the MAC report directly:
“We acknowledge the desire of the Scottish Government for immigration to become a devolved rather than a reserved matter, a question on which the MAC takes no position seeing it as a political rather than an economic question.”
The one part of the MAC report that we do call on Ministers to implement is its recommendation that a pilot project should be established to look at retention of migrants in remote and rural areas. That is a recommendation that the former Home Secretary—now the Chancellor of the Exchequer—accepted in a written statement back in July last year. An entire chapter of the Scottish Government paper is about wanting to engage in the pilot process, and the Scottish Government have tasked their own expert group on migration and population to consider how that could best benefit Scotland’s rural communities. Again, our ask is simple: will the immigration Minister meet Scottish Government Ministers and engage with them on how that pilot scheme could work in Scotland?
Another old chestnut is the argument that issuing a small number of Scottish visas would make the UK system too complex. That takes some brass neck, given the state of UK immigration law and the complexity and bureaucracy that successive UK Governments have imposed on those who come into contact with it. When it comes to work visas, it is widely accepted that while the bureaucracy of the tier 2 system might be surmountable for large multinational companies, it is ill suited and incredibly cumbersome for the small and medium-sized enterprises on which the Scottish economy is more reliant. The Scottish Government paper expressly adopts as one of its principles the need for the migration system to be easy to access and understand, and indeed the MAC and the UK Government have accepted the importance of making the process simpler. The visa proposed by the Scottish Government seeks to make things simpler still for employers by avoiding the burden of formal sponsorship and ensuring that salary thresholds  do not exclude particular jobs. There is every opportunity for the Scottish visa to make life simpler for employers and applicants, rather than more complex.
Finally, the Prime Minister brought up the ludicrous old argument about a tailored system making a border a necessity. Hon. Members will know that successful tailored so-called regional migration systems exist right across the globe, including, of course, in the Government’s favourite Australian system. Not a single one requires internal borders. I might also quietly point out that the UK is happy enough to share an open land border and a common travel area with a country that has an entirely independent immigration system. Over the past five years, Ireland has issued an annual average of 27,000 visas to non-EEA nationals who of course have no right to live and work across the border in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the UK. Next year, EU migrants going to Ireland will fall into that bracket as well, roughly doubling the number of people who will arrive in Ireland with the right to live and work there, but not in the UK. But no one is saying that we need additional checks on people coming into other parts of the common travel area. That is because thinking of immigration control as simply what happens at the border is to fundamentally misunderstand it.
Most immigration control depends on what happens in country. Successful enforcement includes selecting people who are most likely to comply with their visa restrictions, then on placing appropriate conditions on what people can and cannot do once they have passed through the border, and only then on the enforcement action and sanctions that are applied if people do not comply.
The UK’s main work route for non-EU nationals, soon to be rolled out to EU nationals, operates in precisely the same way. People have a visa that is tied to a particular employer. We do not make them comply by erecting a border around them or their workplace, we simply recruit a person we trust to do the job, place conditions on their visa and rely on enforcement and sanctions in the small number of cases where that is needed.

Stuart McDonald: I have not destroyed my own argument, because the parallel is with Ireland. The in-country checks would take place in those parts of United Kingdom where people are not entitled to live and work. It is often said that that would be a back door to working in other parts of the UK, but the checks exist there. If somebody with a Scottish visa applies for a job in London, they will be turned down because there are sanctions for employers who break the rules and for the people who actually do that. It works perfectly well. Nobody suggests that we need to take any action in relation to the people coming in via Ireland, and it would be exactly the same for the far smaller number of people using the Scottish visa.
It is not just Ireland that we are talking about: our friends in the Isle of Man get to issue their own visas and yet the UK is happy to operate a common travel area with them. If the Isle of Man can do that, why not Scotland?
The Lib Dem amendment has not been selected, but I will address it. There is little in its critique of the UK immigration system that I could possibly quibble with, and it is consistent with the principles of dignity, fairness and respect that the Scottish Government’s paper refers to. The amendment also reiterates the party’s call to end limitless immigration detention and to close Dungavel detention centre. My party and I have been making those points for years on end, and we did so in one of our most recent Opposition day debates last summer. Indeed, my party was making those points even while some Lib Dems were part of the coalition Government delivering aspects of the hostile environment that they now condemn. As their amendment states, I want a fair, effective immigration system for the whole of the UK, but again there is absolutely no reason why that cannot incorporate tailored approaches for the different parts of the UK. I urge hon. Members to engage positively on the issues. Their amendment should have added to our motion, not attempted to replace its substance.
The case for a devolved, or at least a tailored, system for Scotland is powerful and verging on the unanswerable. We are at a pivotal moment for migration policy and for Scotland’s population. The overarching objective of UK Government policy is to reduce migration. Nobody in this Chamber can seriously dispute that such a policy goal is wholly inappropriate for Scotland. The Scottish Government, after extensive consultation with stakeholders, have put forward serious but reasonable proposals for a Scottish visa based on a wealth of research and international experience. I urge Ministers and Members across the House to engage seriously with the proposals, because failing to do so risks drastic consequences for Scotland. If that engagement does not happen, if those proposals are not taken seriously and nothing is done to avoid those drastic consequences, more and more people will consider the other way to avoid those drastic consequences. That is, of course, to push through our own independent migration policy, just like Ireland does, as an independent country.

Peter Grant: May I take the Minister back to his enthusiasm for the work of the Migration Advisory Committee? According to the committee’s own website, its six good citizens consist of two from the London School of Economics, one from the University of York, one from the University of Warwick in Coventry, one from the University of Oxford and one from the University of Southampton. According to the biographical information on the MAC website, none of them have declared any previous experience working in Scotland or, as far as I know, in Wales or Northern Ireland, either. Although I welcome the Government’s new-found enthusiasm for the virtues of elite academic experts, as these people no doubt are, if the Minister wants an immigration system that works for the whole UK, surely that system should be looked at and analysed by people with experience of working in all parts of the UK. [Interruption.]

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I do appreciate that. In the case of the Scottish Government, there is currently a very welcome, rational and reasoned approach to migration—in case that compliment was not obvious, I will make sure that it is. However, no one can say that that will always be the case, or that it is even the case in all the nations and regions now. The widespread use of devolved powers in immigration could create bizarre and unworkable recruitment process and practice across the regions if others started to take a less rational approach because of changes in Government. It would impose non-tariff barriers on ourselves and on the most important factor in production—workers themselves. Instead, we should aim for a reasonable and fair migration system that benefits us all.
Just so that no one confuses my remarks with those of the Minister, this is not the same immigration policy as that of the Government. We would rather welcome those who contribute to our wellbeing in the widest possible sense, and uphold their rights to a family life as equals in the workforce, and their rights as citizens when it comes to voting and access to public funds. I am sure that the Scottish National party would agree with that. “No taxation without representation” remains a great rallying cry, and we can add to that “no taxation without access to the benefits of taxation”. That should be our approach to the migrant workers we have welcomed here and their families.
Although I share the Scottish National party’s frustrations and many of their views on subjects such as immigration detention, I would say that the best way to have a fair, humane and economically sound immigration policy that benefits us all would be to see off the current Government. I am sure that the SNP would agree.
I reiterate that I welcome today’s motion, its tone and its overall approach, but we do not agree with the proposal to devolve immigration policy. I also note that the motion only calls for the Home Secretary to “engage positively” with that proposal. That is an entirely reasonable and democratic demand given the status of the Scottish Government.

Mark Harper: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), but I must confess to being slightly confused. I listened to her opening remarks, in which she welcomed the motion from the SNP and said that she broadly agreed with it, but she then spent the rest of her speech going through all the areas where she did not agree with it. I do however welcome the fact that, post general election, she effectively confirmed what the  Labour conference said it supported last autumn. She confirmed that Labour basically wants an open-door policy for migrants, and she specifically said that she wanted migrants to have access to the benefits system from day one. It was very helpful that she confirmed that.
The hon. Lady also confirmed that Labour does not believe in having any detention centres, and she mentioned the recent Home Office flight. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), in his place, and as a former Immigration Minister I congratulate him on the Home Office’s fortitude in ensuring that around 20 foreign national offenders guilty of very serious criminal offences have been removed from our country. They were not British citizens. They were foreign nationals who abused the hospitality our country offered them by committing very serious criminal offences, and I for one—I think I speak for many members of the public—am pleased that they are no longer here. I congratulate my hon. Friend on standing up to the pressure he was put under by those who forget that we are supposed to be in the business of protecting the public and removing serious offenders.
Let me turn to the motion on the Order Paper. In his wide-ranging speech, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) talked about Scotland as a proportion of the United Kingdom population and its share of migrants. It is very interesting to look at the data. We have a significant number of migrants coming to the United Kingdom, whether we look at it in net or gross terms, and it is very interesting that when we consider Scotland as a proportion of the United Kingdom’s population and do the same for the other constituent parts of the UK, and look at where migrants choose to go, it is clear that the gap between the number of migrants choosing to go to Scotland and its population is the biggest anywhere in the UK. In other words, most migrants who come to the United Kingdom prefer to go to England, Wales and Northern Ireland—

Pete Wishart: Of course, we remember the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution of the “Go Home” vans, which he introduced when he was Immigration Minister—but we will leave that aside just now. By pointing out that such a low number of migrants are coming to Scotland, surely he is actually making the case for allowing Scotland to have the ability to recruit more migrants.

Stuart McDonald: This is a chicken and egg situation, and the right hon. Member has got it the wrong way around, if that is possible. The point is that all those papers and the MAC itself suggest that, if countries are able to attract more migrants, their economy will grow. We need the powers to attract and allow in more people, and to grow our economy faster. The Minister referred to that point a previous time in the Home Affairs Committee. He was very good at pointing out how the tier 2 system was wholly unsuitable for Scotland. That is one of the key reasons why Scotland—and pretty much everywhere outside London—struggles to compete to attract migrants.

Mark Harper: I will come back at the end of my remarks to what should happen, when I set out why I think the House should oppose the motion. On the point about business, the hon. Gentleman has just proved my point. Of course business—particularly big business—is in favour of having an open-door immigration system, which enables them to import labour from around the world, keep down wages and not have to pay people to reflect skills and training properly. I had this conversation with business when I was Immigration Minister and subsequently. Sometimes we have to push back a bit and explain to businesses that they need to  increase their salaries and training and increase their productivity in order to pay those salaries. That is a good message for the public.

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend is exactly right.
To make my penultimate point, in the documents, there are a number of references, as I have said, to Canada and Australia. Canada and Australia both  allow free movement around their countries. The point is made in the Scottish Government’s own document that there are significant problems in retaining staff who have come in on the regional visas in the areas where they were supposed to stay, largely driven by the more attractive economic offers in other parts of the country. That is a real challenge, given that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East accepted that the present system is that there are more attractive economic opportunities for migrants in other parts of the United Kingdom than in Scotland—that was his own argument—and I do not see anything in the document that suggests that the Scottish Government would be able to retain those migrants in Scotland.
Finally, to turn to the motion, I think that the hon. Gentleman and the SNP have got it the wrong way round. They have published a document and called on the Home Secretary to engage with them with their proposals. Given that the Government have not yet set out their proposals in detail and they have not been agreed by the Cabinet, a more sensible approach, now that we have left the European Union—that battle is over for now; given the SNP’s position on Brexit, it was challenging for it to accept that it was happening— would be for the SNP to engage with the Government. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who opened the debate and who I am pleased to see in his place, made it clear that his door was open. The SNP should engage with both the Home Office and the Scotland Office to look at how the measures that will be set out in our points-based system—I have set out one or two of them—could best engage with Scotland’s needs.
We are keen that we have an immigration system that works for the whole of the United Kingdom, to make every part of our country more dynamic, and to increase pay and opportunities for people across the United Kingdom. That is the best way of proceeding, so I suggest that the House, when the time comes later today, reject the motion. I urge the SNP to engage seriously with the Government. If it does so, it will find a listening ear and a willingness to engage on that basis, which is the best way for us all to move forward.

Tommy Sheppard: I am not sure of the relevance of that question to the current debate, but let me answer. It will not be too many years hence until Scotland is a strong and prosperous economy with its own currency, its own central bank and punching well above its weight compared with today.
Various arguments have already been made against this proposal by those on the Government Benches, but they do not hold water, because they are not, in essence, arguments against what is being proposed—

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Gentleman is correct about that. As a member of the all-party group on hospitality, I agree very much that that sector needs to have people coming in here to do those jobs and that we value them as well, because they bring not only their skills to our restaurants and catering services, but their food, which we enjoy. We should thank them, rather than making them feel unwelcome.
Let me move on to people in the care sector and the issues they face. A couple came to see me on 16 December 2015, having worked in care homes and been very much valued there. They were then at the point of working in their care home voluntarily because the Home Office had rescinded their right to work. They had a son they were are putting through school. They came to see me at my surgery on 13 January to say that finally, after five years, they had been granted their status. They were looking forward to going back to work in the care home, because that care home had kept the faith that they would eventually get the chance to work and be paid for it. During that period of many years they were hosted by volunteers from Positive Action in Housing, and they were supported by the British Red Cross, their solicitors McGlashan MacKay and a range of services that provided them with food for free, with food banks and with other things. They had to come to my office to get school uniforms for their growing son. During that time they were destitute. What does that say to that family? They want to come here and work hard, they are in a valuable role, but the Home Office says, “No, actually, we don’t need you.” We know that we do. We know that we need people in the care sector, yet a couple who have dedicated their lives to caring are being told that they cannot do that. So I have no confidence in the UK Government to make the required changes that will allow constituents such as these to manage their lives, to be a success and to feel welcome in this country.

Simon Hoare: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). Although I did not agree with everything that she said—she will not be surprised by that—whenever she speaks in this place, the sincerity and affection that she has for her constituents and the work that she does on their behalf shines through every word that she says.
While I am feeling in a magnanimous mood, may I also congratulate—for what it is worth, coming from me—the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is new to the Front Bench and gave a compelling speech that was professionally delivered? Of course, it paled in comparison with the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), which the House was very interested to  hear—although she is not that interested to hear what I have to say about her speech; she has left her place. There we are. That is the benefit of making a maiden speech.
A number of Members on the Opposition Benches have referenced the Migration Advisory Committee. I have to say that, if I had my way, I would abolish it—in the same way that I would either abolish or ignore the organisation Migration Watch. Neither of them are anywhere on pace when it comes to the needs that our country, as a united country, faces when it comes to migration. In a post-EU membership age, it is perfectly proper that our immigration policies, to meet all quarters of the United Kingdom, are forged in this place by Ministers, scrutinised by this House and approved, and then they can change. There should be receptiveness and fluidity within whatever system we alight on to meet the needs of our country.

Angus MacNeil: Talking of sunshine and honeymoon music, I was listening to the hon. Gentleman’s passionate plea on the case for Unionism, but when he looks over the past century and sees the Republic of Ireland as the independent state that it is, does he not think that Scotland could do just as well or a little better if it could make its own decisions as Ireland can, both on immigration and on a raft of other decisions, rather than having them being made by a Government from a party that we have not voted for since 1955?

Neale Hanvey: I shall begin my remarks this evening by paying tribute to the many people who have come to Scotland to build a life among us. Each plays an important and valued part in Scotland’s story and their contribution to the tapestry  of Scottish life makes Scotland a richer place to live, work and thrive in. I know that because, while I was not born in Scotland, Scotland made me welcome and it will forever be the place that I call home.
While I spent my early years in the north of Ireland immersed in the Unionist tradition, the years in Scotland that followed made it clear to me that there is no homogenous British identity: no such thing as one nation. We are very different countries with differing values, principles and politics.
In the early ’90s I, like so many in Scotland, left for work, moving to London to pursue professional opportunities not available to me at home. My return in 2009 was a revelation. The success of the devolved Government with their limited powers had begun to bring life to our distinct body politic, and this was inspiring. However, that optimism was quickly tempered in 2010 by the return of a Tory Government Scotland did not vote for, and it is my view that since that day this place has worked to stymie the advances Scotland has made and to pour scorn on our ability and our ambition.
The most recent example of that is the offhand contempt the UK Government have shown the people of Scotland in their response to the Scottish Government’s proposals for a Scottish visa scheme in a post-Brexit UK. It is simply not credible that any meaningful consideration of the proposal took place; we must wonder if the Government’s policy on Scotland is filed under B for bin. In this particular case they dismissed the views of the organisations that support the Scottish Government’s proposals, including business and rural communities, the Scottish TUC, FSB Scotland and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.
As noted in the motion, Scotland has distinct and different migration needs to sustain our population and help meet demographic challenges. The sole concession is alleged recognition of the need for “some regional variation” and claims that Scotland benefits from a separate shortage occupation list.
The first issue I have with that position is fundamental: Scotland is not a region, it is a country. The second point illustrates the complete lack of understanding of Scotland’s needs by the Government and, indeed, the Minister. Perhaps he should have a chat with his hon. Friends the Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). While the Government continue to promote their reductionist and hostile environment, Scotland wants to encourage and welcome people to build their life with us, among us, as one of us; if the Government can add “new Scot” to their shortage list, that would be a start.
Turning to the local impact in my constituency, Innovate Foods in Dysart is a company that manufactures food for restaurants, retail and catering wholesalers. It employs 65 people, almost half of whom were born overseas. Some of the workers have been with Innovate for nearly 20 years, and the company has translated instructions and recipes into Polish, with some Scottish staff learning Polish to speak to their colleagues in the workforce. The director, Tony Dumbreck, told me that having a large migrant workforce has been a positive experience, remarking that they are generally well educated, they have brought skills that are in demand and they work very hard. He wants them to have as much stability and security as possible and considers them as part of the Innovate  family. That attitude is emblematic of the warm, inclusive attitude of the people and the communities I serve to those who choose to make Scotland their home. Since Brexit, he has lost some staff as a result of the toxic hostile environment rhetoric. However, that is not his only concern. He told me:
“Even with the reduced earnings threshold of £25,600, that will be a constraint to try to employ production workers. We perceive that fewer people will be coming here.”
Of course, that is not a surprise. Although my immediate predecessor made no reference to migration in this place in her two years as an MP, save to criticise fellow Scottish MPs standing up for Scotland, her predecessor, Roger Mullin, did give this matter appropriate focus both here and at home. In a debate in this place in 2017, Mr Mullin stated:
“Scotland has different productivity needs, one of which relates to our attitude towards immigration. I would argue that we need more immigration, of the right type.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2017; Vol. 622, c. 199.]
Locally, Roger convened meetings with groups of constituents to listen to and support them in their anxieties about a post-Brexit Scotland. He also worked with Fife Migrants Forum, based in Kirkcaldy, to better understand the challenges of the communities it serves.
Under current UK immigration rules, highly talented workers are subject to the costly and bureaucratic tier 1 exceptional talent visa process. The Migration Advisory Committee has said that this system “does not work well” and found that only 600 main applicants had been admitted, despite a cap of 2,000 visas. The UK Government have announced that a new, global talent visa will be launched on 20 February 2020 as part of a post-Brexit immigration system, but many believe that with it being open to highly talented individuals only, it will still fail to address chronic skills shortages. Of course visas serve an important function, but when they set the bar at an unrealistic or unnecessarily high level, they become an impediment to growth and ambition. Recognising that there are differing needs across the nations and regions of the UK while applying a one-size-fits-all is as senseless as it is reckless.
Inward migration is undeniably important, but Scotland also faces a retention challenge. The process to ensure that applications for settled status are completed before the 30 June cut-off is sadly farcical. Yesterday, representatives from Fife Migrants Forum attended the EU settled status conference here in London in the hope that it would get answers to vital questions. On 31 March, its funding runs out and, having already suffered due to impediments placed on it by the Home Office, it has only been able to process about 700 of the expected 3,000 applications from some of the most vulnerable people across Fife. Without appropriate funding, some of those constituents may fall through the cracks if the knife falls in six weeks’ time. They are particularly concerned about those members of our community who may now be in care homes. Who will fund them? Will they be removed? These are outrageous suggestions, but it is the reality of UK Government policy. It also applies to students, employees, older people and those in the rural parts of my constituency. Yesterday they were told that “everything is in the hands of the politicians”. Well it certainly is not in the hands of the politicians they elect.
The Government’s continued hostile, unhelpful and toxic environment, which weaponises the word “migrant”, is anathema to me and many in Scotland. We do not call them migrants in such a pejorative way. To us, they are friends, neighbours, partners and workmates. When we ask where you are from, it is with warm and genuine interest rather than suspicion and mistrust.
Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), erroneously claimed that the independent Migration Advisory Committee has consistently recommended against regional differences in salary thresholds for skilled-worker visas, but its most recent report to the Government on a points-based system and salary thresholds did recommend that the Government pilot a separate visa for remote areas of the UK, including and involving all the devolved Administrations. The current buzz line in the Government is “oven-ready”. Well, they know that Scotland has an oven-ready scheme—why not try it?

Philippa Whitford: I declare an interest that many Members will know of: my husband, Hans, is German and has worked as a GP in Scotland for over 30 years, looking after Scottish people when they are ill, as indeed have many migrants from all sorts of places—not just Europe but across the world. I am talking about our colleagues, our friends, our neighbours, and I follow my colleagues in celebrating them.
There has been a failure to recognise the sheer scale of the challenge Scotland faces. Scotland is one third of the UK landmass. It is enormous. I know on the weather map it looks small, but it is not; it is actually huge. The James Hutton Institute points out that half of that is defined as sparsely populated, and those areas could lose a quarter of their population by the mid ‘40s unless  action is taken. Because of freedom of movement, Scotland had a growing population for a number of years, but Scottish net migration fell across the EU referendum from 31,500 in 2015 to 21,000 in 2017. That is a fall of a third. That was the impact of Brexit, even though we had not left.
Scotland has faced forced out-migration over centuries, right back to the clearances of the 18th and 19th centuries, when people were forcibly put on ships and sent elsewhere in the world. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out, we did not just lose the individuals who left; we lost their children and grandchildren; we lost generations of people. As he also mentioned, in 2017-18, there were over 7,500 more deaths than births, with 2018 seeing the second lowest ever number of registered births. Scotland’s natural growth is falling, and all our population growth over the next quarter century is expected to come from immigration. Without it, we face a falling working-age population by the mid-2030s that will struggle to support our ageing population.
The hon. Member highlighted this demographic time bomb, but I did not hear him offer a solution. Some 14 local authorities in Scotland already have a falling population, and that includes my constituency in the south-west of Scotland. In remote and rural areas, it becomes a worsening spiral. We are left with older communities, so young people go on leaving, which means there are fewer children. The population becomes smaller and ages rapidly. These are often stunningly beautiful parts of Scotland to which people from elsewhere in the UK and Scotland retire. Now, they are very welcome, but unfortunately that actually adds to the problem of ageing. We can end up with communities that simply do not have enough young people within them to provide the health and social care, or even just the support that they need.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said that Scotland needed to up its GDP growth—that was the issue—but the Fraser of Allander Institute highlighted that GDP growth rates were directly linked to population growth rates. It is predicted that the UK’s population will grow by over 7% in the coming years but that Scotland’s will only grow by 1%. Indeed, if action is not taken, it may start to fall. The Migration Advisory Committee pointed out that EU citizens contributed £2,300 more in tax than natives, because they come here after someone else has paid for their education and training. Isn’t it a pity that that report was requested in 2017, and not in 2015, before the EU referendum, of which getting immigration down was made a central plank?
Our problem is that we need young people; we need young migrants to come into Scotland. I am talking about people of working age, who are low users of welfare, low users of the NHS and not collectors of pensions. We need to attract them, not with a job they can do for a few years, but to settle. That is what points-based systems are about—giving someone early on in the process the right to settle somewhere, make their life there and have a family there—and that is what Scotland requires.
These people bring to our communities the diversity, energy and vitality that can help us to retain our own young people. At present UK visas are based on earnings, so younger people earn less—even on the minimum  wage—which means that they will not qualify for visas. Salaries are often much lower in rural areas, so they cannot attract migrants because of the salary thresholds. That hits key sectors in which Scotland is highly represented, such as tourism, food and drink, agriculture and fishing. I agree that is great to know that the number of seasonal workers will increase from a paltry 2,500 to 10,000, but before the earlier cut, the UK had 64,000. As the Member for West Aberdeenshire admitted, 70,000 might be a more realistic number, but when on earth will we reach that if the 10,000 is only a proposal?
As for fishing, many boats are tied up on the west coast of Scotland because of a lack of crew. That highlights the need for non-EEA visas, particularly for Filipino fishermen who come here. They do not bring families and they are not intending to settle, but they help to provide the training that can attract local young people to the industry. I have written to the Secretary of State in the past, I have written to Immigration Ministers, and the possibility of a seafarers’ visa has been discussed in the House. However, each time that possibility is raised, we are told that there cannot be any sectoral visas. So I can tell those who have said, “Oh, let us have sectoral visas” that this Government have already refused to allow them.
There has been a drop of a quarter in the number of European doctors coming to the UK since the Brexit referendum, a 90% drop in the number of European nurses, and a one-third increase in the number of European nurses leaving. In particular, young medical trainees cannot come here. Those who wish to become—like me—a surgeon are committing themselves to training that will last between 10 and 14 years. They can move when they are untrained and they can move when they are consultants, but they cannot afford to be kicked out in the middle, and they therefore require long-term security. According to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, 80% of UK-trained nurses are over 50, while 72% of EU trained staff are under 40.
The problem is that the Government are judging on the basis of earnings. They are judging on the basis of money rather than worth. They are not judging on the basis of the contribution that people make to the system and the wellbeing of the community. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) admitted that we need a range of skills. As a surgeon, I can tell the House that I need an anaesthetist, but I also need an orderly, and I need someone who cleans the theatre. We need everyone, so there is no sense in this narrative of excluding unskilled people, or allowing them to come for no more than a year. Who is going to invest in their training?

Kevin Foster: I am afraid I will have to make progress, due to the time and the length of the debate. I also noticed that not many interventions were being taken on the Benches opposite.
Next year, we will be opening the graduate route to allow those who have been here at any skill level to work for two years after completing their studies. Again, we are showing that we are listening, and we are making a difference. I listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) about the fishing industry, and I know that this is an import issue for Members on the SNP Benches. We will look carefully at the recommendation of an immigration pilot for remote communities, and how that could potentially assist in this area. I would say, however, that I have never considered the vibrant cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh remote, and I do not think anyone else would.
Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out, we have already taken the decision to increase the seasonal agricultural workers pilot to 10,000—again following feedback about the needs of the Scottish economy. So there are many areas where we are taking on board the views that have been expressed. The best example is where I was on the day the Scottish Government produced their plans—at Glasgow University, talking specifically about the changes to tier 1 to create an uncapped global talent route that will allow universities  to put together research teams based not on passports, but on the skills they need to deliver accredited projects. I heard the excitement when they saw the opportunity for Scottish interests and Scottish stakeholders to be at the heart of designing the UK’s immigration policy in a way that assists them. Similarly, we are looking further at how we can work through the tier 4 system with those organisations, particularly universities with a high compliance rate, to make sure it works even better for them.
The key is ensuring that talent across the world sees the great potential of Scotland, as the UK Government do, and that means creating an attractive environment for investment and for working there. The Scottish Government, of course, have power over vast swathes of public life in Scotland—education, healthcare, infrastructure and taxation—and they perhaps may wish to question the impact, in terms of welcoming people, of making Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom with their policy decisions. The Scottish Government have control of all the necessary levers to encourage investment, to build an educated and skilled workforce, and to secure Scotland’s economic future. With all those tools available, why do they still seek to stoke division? It is because separatism, not Scotland’s future, is their first priority. SNP Members should ask themselves whether the failings in education that Nicola Sturgeon has presided over have anything to do with Scottish companies seeking talent from elsewhere, or whether any number of overseas medical professionals will deal with the issues in the Scottish health service. This Government will create an in-response-to-demand NHS visa system that makes it easy to recruit health workers, but again, that will not necessarily tackle the core issues of the failure of domestic policy set by the Scottish National party.
As pointed out in this debate, immigration has brought a vast wealth of experience, expertise and diversity to the United Kingdom, and we have heard some great examples in this debate of where that has taken place, but that cannot be used as a stopgap or to make up for the failings of nationalist policies elsewhere. Above all, those who choose to come and make their lives in the United Kingdom should be welcomed across all four nations, not used to stoke constitutional grievances or in an attempt to set up a border at Berwick.
The United Kingdom Government have looked at the proposals, which talk of settlement. Is that settlement purely in Scotland or elsewhere? For us, the key is to look at the themes, the needs and the requirements, rather than to just look at how we can break up the United Kingdom. I am clear that there will be challenges to address across our Union, but the idea that we should do that based on the nations of the United Kingdom misses the point. The idea, for example, that Torbay’s economy is instantly comparable to London’s because it happens to be in England, or that the appropriate solution for the Scottish highlands would be to have the same visa as in Edinburgh, misses some of the key ways our economy works. Again, I am conscious that this is something that was decided more by a Government who set up a review to look for their destination of separation, rather than a genuine look at how life patterns work across our United Kingdom.
We are clear that we will listen to feedback. We have written back to the Scottish Government and we will listen to feedback from stakeholders and the Scottish  Government about how a future migration system can work. We will look at what their policies would deliver and whether they would deliver success across our United Kingdom. That will be the focus of our policies and plans for taking this forward and making ourselves a nation that prioritises and embraces a bright, optimistic future for Scotland, a place whose natural beauty is second to none. But we will also reject the separatist view of a grievance-based culture of constitutional argument, as I know the House will tonight.
Question put.

Marsha de Cordova: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to talk about the pay gaps and problems in those structures.
As I said, things are simply not getting better, and according to the Sutton Trust elite voices continue to dominate our media, as they have since the 1950s. In fact, according to the Government’s own figures, journalists are second only to doctors as the most exclusive profession in Britain, with the majority of journalists coming from middle-class backgrounds.
The lack of working-class representation in our media also means a lack of black, Asian and other minority ethnic group representation. A study by City University and the Sutton Trust shows that 94% of journalists are white and only 0.2% of journalists are black. In a recent report, Ofcom criticised this “woeful” lack of diversity in broadcast television. And I can understand why. There is not a single high-profile British news programme or current affairs series headed by a non-white person. Growing up, I was used to seeing Trevor McDonald and Moira Stuart on my screen. As I grew older I expected to see more people of colour reading the news or providing political commentary, but progress seems to have ground to a halt. The National Council for the Training of Journalists found that the proportion of black broadcast journalists has remained unchanged at 1% since 2002. Figures from Ofcom show that only 10% of those in leadership roles in news and current affairs at the BBC are from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background and that only 7% of ITV and 11% of Sky employees working in journalism are from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background.
There are 8 million black and ethnic minority people in this country and 14 million disabled people, but neither group is given a proper voice in our media. The United Nations convention on the rights of disabled people is clear that all disabled people should have the right to
“effectively and fully participate in…public life on an equal basis with others”,
and that includes the media. The failure to recruit disabled journalists has done little to change that. It is time that we saw blind and partially sighted people like myself and disabled people anchoring the news on TV and radio and as political commentators. It is time that we read more columns, op-eds and analysis by wheelchair users. And it is time for all broadcasters to recognise their responsibilities by ensuring that disabled people are recognised in our media.
We cannot forget that diversity in our media means off-screen diversity as well as on-screen diversity. Under a third of TV occupations are held by women, and less than a fifth are from a working-class background. From 2013 to 2016, just 2.2% of British TV episodes were made by ethnic minority directors. That means that entire series of dramas, comedies, sketch shows, reality TV shows, and their story arcs, have been created without any black, Asian or minority ethnic group input. It is time that Ofcom introduced a regulatory mechanism to  monitor the make-up of all workforces, on-screen and off-screen. We must not be afraid to say that, like many other areas and sectors of society, our media are a bit pale, a bit male and a bit stale.
I recognise all the important work done by broadcasters and news organisations across the media, but we must ask why there has been so little improvement. Some key factors are making this systemic lack of diversity worse. First, unpaid internships continue to be a key way in which people enter journalism. Recent figures reveal that more than 80% of new entrants to journalism do internships that are unpaid. Working for free is something that can only be done by a select few—that is, by people who live in urban centres and who are supported by their families. An element of the old boys’ club still reigns strong in the media; in some instances, it seems to be a case of not what you know, but who you know. Any Government who are committed to a real living wage and believe that everybody should have an equal chance to work should act to abolish unpaid internships. Secondly, the decimation of local news sources has had a negative impact on aspiring journalists from outside the urban centres, because it has removed the pipeline from local and regional up towards national press and broadcasting.
When the Minister responds, will he tell me whether he agrees that there is a systemic problem with diversity in the media? What are the Government doing to ensure that they fulfil the commitments set out in the industrial strategy, and deliver a media sector that is open to all talented people, irrespective of their race, disability, class or gender? Will he call on all major media corporations to report on all aspects of the diversity of their workforce, including their socioeconomic make-up, and will he legislate to ensure that these organisations publish their pay gap data for gender, disability and ethnicity? Will he introduce a regulatory requirement for organisations to publish the data on their black, Asian and minority ethnic, disability and LGBT workforce from senior executive level to entry level? And will he confirm that the rumours circulating that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be dissolved are not true?
As I come to the end of my speech, I would like to put on record my recognition of the important work done by organisations, such as Channel 4, to increase socioeconomic and regional diversity in their workforces. I commend it for its target to have 12% disabled staff across the organisation by 2023. But we know that there is an unacceptable divide between media and society, as was articulated well by Jon Snow from Channel 4. In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, he lamented the media’s failure to recognise what was happening, saying:
“in an increasingly fractured Britain, we in the media”
have
“little awareness, contact, or connection with those not of the elite.”
A media dominated by the elite means that broadcasters, newspapers and our stories do not reflect the rich diversity of our society. For instance, with so few Muslim journalists—0.2%—it is no coincidence that over a third of newspaper articles “misrepresented or made generalisations” about the Muslim community, according to the Muslim Council of Britain. When disabled staff make up just 5.5% of off-screen staff at major broadcasters, it is no wonder that they are not represented on our TV screens.
Without a diverse workforce made up of every part of our society—without reporters with an understanding of, say, Bristol and Birmingham, and without executives from Oxton as well as Oxbridge—the media will always fail to speak for us all. It is time for real action and time for real change so that our media is by us, for us and about us.

Nigel Adams: I do, and I am about to come on to the very valid points that the hon. Lady made.
As of 2019, the proportion of women in the BBC was 47%, and the proportion of BAME people was 15%. That is better than the national labour population in general, but it falls behind other public service broadcasters. The proportion of women at Channel 4, for example, is 57%, and the proportion of BAME people is 19%.
As Members will be aware, the BBC charter establishes Ofcom as the independent regulator for the BBC. Ofcom must therefore continue to hold the BBC to account on its diversity requirements. Ofcom’s review of BBC representation and portrayal on TV in 2018 set challenges for the BBC, and the Government expect the BBC to keep working towards being a more diverse and representative organisation and broadcaster.
Ofcom’s responsibility to hold the BBC to account on its diversity requirements is part of its wider role to monitor the diversity of the UK television sector as a whole. Ofcom has a duty to promote equality of opportunity in relation to employment in the broadcasting sector and has powers to ask broadcasters to provide information about their equal opportunities policies and the make-up of their workforce. Ofcom’s findings are published in its annual report on diversity and equal opportunities in television. In its latest report, it notes that 13% of the UK television industry identifies as BAME, which is just above the average of the UK labour market. The number of women—45%—is only just below the average of the UK labour market. It is with disability that Ofcom identifies a real issue, with 6% of the UK television industry reporting as disabled, which falls well below the 18% of the UK labour market. Clearly, more needs to be done in that regard.
A big issue is the availability of data on the diverse make-up of the media industry. Ofcom says that, while gaps in the data are decreasing, the number who report as “undisclosed” is increasing, and therein lies the issue. It is important that, in acknowledging that more could be done to support the industry, we understand that part of that is ensuring we have the available data to  support the case for change and to measure success when it comes. Without doubt, UK television should reflect modern Britain, both on and off the screen, and the Government are supportive of Ofcom’s work to drive improvements in that area.
The hon. Lady referred to social mobility, which remains a problem at many media organisations. For example, it was reported last year that only 9% of staff at Channel 4 identified as coming from a working-class background. Even at the BBC, which has the highest number of staff from lower social classes, 61% of staff identify as coming from a higher social class. However, I would like to applaud Channel 4 for taking this problem seriously and acknowledging that it wants to be a place where the doors are open to everyone. This is a difficult problem to tackle. Those from higher social classes have the capital to afford to take low-paid or unpaid internships, to get a foot in the door.
The hon. Lady also asked whether the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be dissolved. On behalf of myself and the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), I very much hope that that is not the case, but we will have to wait until Thursday.